Millions of people were devastated when Shonda Rhimes killed off Dr. Derek Shepherd from her hit television series Grey's Anatomy. Upset fans vowed never to watch the show again, but Rhimes insisted the show would go on without him. With the new season premiering in 24 hours, discuss what kind of effect Derek's absence will have on the show, its huge following, and the ratings. Is Rhimes's writing strong enough to carry the show forward without the McDreamy star who so many tuned in each week to look at?
With many deaths that this series brings, I often feel a dark void when watching the show. This definitely changes the dynamic of the show immensely. So much of the story line was about Merideth and Derek, for about 10 seasons I would say. We, at least I did, loved seeing a couple that had to go through so many trials and tribulations end up together and build a life together. All that is now gone. So what is the point? Well, I think the point is that life continues to go on even though our favorite parts of it begins to vanish. – caitlinndwyer9 years ago
First and foremost, Meredith will definitely be effected by his absence. She now is a single mom who has to raise their three children without their father. Shonda's writing is strong enough, as she has proven season after season, but sometimes shows just run their course. It's been on the air for ten years now. Even without factoring the death of Derek, at what point do you just call it quits? Another show that lost its main characters was One Tree Hill. Chad Michael Murray and Hilarie Burton both left, but the show continued on for a few more seasons. At the end of the day, it really just comes down to the fans and if they're still engrossed in the show. – diehlsam9 years ago
There used to be a time where none of the media we consumed was mediated by a screen. Now there have been many articles about the rise in multi-screen viewing across different age groups.
Research and analyze whether any content publishers (word, video, or audio) are making use of this phenomenon successfully or innovatively.
The first example which comes to mind is The Walking Dead and AMC's implementation of a multi-screen viewing experience. It's one of the most widely viewed television series currently airing; I'm sure that would be a good place to start. – GetALifeMegan9 years ago
How on earth would multi-screen viewing affect things like ADHD, ADD, Epilepsy... I don't even want to THINK about the adverse effects on an already attention-deprived society! – burchdm9 years ago
For awhile now, Netflix has been known to not only feature its own programming, but now the streaming service has offered to revive shows that have been canceled on primetime and cable television. However, other services such as Amazon, Hulu, and now Yahoo, are not only creating their own shows but also offering to save others. Perfect examples include "The Mindy Project" that was saved by Hulu, "Community" which was saved by Yahoo, and now "Degrassi: Next Class" which will find a new home on Netflix. Does this mean every cancelled show now has a second choice? Why are these shows being saved rather than others? What's the criteria? And based on that, what currently axed shows may see a revival?
I guess now we just have to wait for Firefly: The Next Generation, LOL.
In all seriousness, my biggest problem with Netflix is how it hooks people into shows that have already been cancelled. I think that's another route to discuss. I have discovered shows that only lasted a season, but thanks to Netflix I watch all 22 episodes in a week and then go on the longest depression, until I find the next new show. This upsets me greatly. – sfg3159 years ago
A million people raise their hands in the air and share their energy with Joss Whedon in the hope that Firefly might be revived.
I believe Netflix revives shows based on a mixture of critical acclaim. They're not out, necessarily, to get the biggest audience, and they don't have to base their economic plan on weekly views. With everything being accessible at once, rather than having to compete with alternate channels they can simply watch as the view count increases, perhaps slowly, but steadily no-less. – therevolution9 years ago
I find the strategy of Netflix of introducing shows instead of just films to be quite brilliant. Not only do people sign up for Netflix subscriptions so they can watch the show they've been hearing so much about or pick up their fav show that was cancelled by network television, but they stay subscribed because Netflix helpfully and strategically points out other shows you might be interested in based on your interest in such and such...Before you know it, people are hooked on another new show and continue their Netflix subscription so they can watch a new show while they wait for the next season of their old fav to be released. Now Netflix is playing the nostalgia card by bringing back old school favs such as Full House with their upcoming Fuller House, including the original cast. I am curious to see if other re-boots are in the works as well. – Storme9 years ago
It may also be worth discussing the different episode release schedule (i.e releasing an entire seasons worth of episodes at once as opposed to releasing them one at a time on a specified airdate), how this changes how viewers watch and appreciate the show, and what cancelled shows may be most suitable for this format. – Inkstone9 years ago
Look at how the Anti-Hero has becomes so popular in television (Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, True Detective, Mad Men etc.). Was it original when the fad started? Is it for sure over used now? But most importantly is the ANTI part of Anti-hero being pronounced enough for audiences? Are audiences and fandoms still glorifying and cheering for the anti-hero? Are people pro Walter White? Or are they reading the text and realizing Walter White is a terrible person and deserves a cruel ending? There seems to be a fetish of anti-heroes on TV and it could be a harmful obsession.
An anti hero is essentially a hero without almost any morals to their character. Sadly people just find blue blooded heroes like Superman and Cyclops from the X-Men boring, which is a shame because blue blooded heroes are important to have. They show us that we can do good without having to cross a line. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
In my opinion, Walter White should not be considered an anti-hero. He is a straight up villain by the end. being the protagonist does make the character a hero. A protagonist can have evil intentions, like Louis Bloom from NIghtcrawler. Too often, people confuse villain protagonists with anti-heroes, and yes, it can be harmful when it comes to viewer accountability. The allure of most anti-heroes, like Gregory House, Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), and Deadpool, are that they are more emotionally accessible to most audiences. Sometimes people identify with an unsavory character more than they'd like to let on. The anti-heroes you are attracted to says a lot about you as a person. – HannahMeholick9 years ago
In _The Big Bang Theory_, Will Wheaton plays the character "Will Wheaton" but that character is an exaggerated version of Wheaton's public characteristics, it's not meant to be a true-to-life version of himself. The same is true for James Van Der Beek's character in _Don't Trust the B— in Apt 23_; though named "James Van Der Beek", we are not supposed to think that character legitimately portrays Van Der Beek's true character.
What challenges do actors face when playing "themselves"? Research through interviews might provide insights into how the actors feel. It seems like both men are having fun with the exaggerations, but are there difficulties? Do they struggle with fans who are unable to make the distinction? Do such roles diminish an actor's credibility by making their career into a joke, or does it create additional name recognition and re-ignite careers?
Probably a third actor/role should be added to round out this discussion.
Interesting topic! If you decide to write this topic, you need to differentiate cameos and actors actually playing themselves for a whole film. It's also worth looking at Sunset Boulevard as it is a fascinating exploration of the star system and the evolving film industry. Billy Wilder uses Buster Keaton, Gloria Swanson and Erich von Stroheim for a reason - they all play characters who are very similar to themselves and the way the film industry has treated them and forgotten them. The names change, but they are actually playing themselves and their lives on camera. Thrilling! – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
"This is the End" is probably the best recent example, and the stories of each of the actors getting in real fights due to false ones they wrote for the film that were too close to the truth is a fascinating story in and of itself. – smartstooge9 years ago
Is there such a thing as a "true-to-life version of oneself" for actors who portray themselves in movies or TV shows? – T. Palomino1 year ago
"Growing the Beard" is the definitive moment when a series begins to become noticeably better in quality and "Jumping the Shark" is the opposite.
What is it that gives a certain TV show that first burst of success? What maintains that initial popularity, and what are the signs that a show has endured past its prime?
Focus on shows such as "Happy Days," "Firefly," "Battlestar Galactica," and "Star Trek: TNG".
Introduced to North America in the 1990s, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers was a different type of superhero show that became a major part of pop culture. Later on it was revealed that the series actually used footage and characters from the 16th Super Sentai series in Japan, Zyuranger. Both series has similarities but contain many differences due to cultural differences from their home countries. Are the changes justified or was the conversion from Sentai to Power Rangers an example of Americanizing foreign shows?
I think it'll be really hard to know whether the changes were justified. Justified here makes little sense... What kind of cultural changes are justified? Do we measure it with the amount of originality it has or accreditation it gives to the original show? Anyway, I'm tempted to think that any cultural copy, no matter how natural-looking or coincidental, is a step of, well, copying. So surely it's an example of Americanizing foreign shows, which continues even today I think. – Abhimanyu Shekhar9 years ago
I've noticed that a few different shows that I've watched feature con-men (White Collar's Neal Caffrey and Suits's Mike Ross). I think an interesting article might be to explore this fascination with con-men and how TV glorifies this illegal act. Throughout the course of both Suits and White Collar we grow to love and relate to both Neal and Mike even though in the real world these are criminals. What does it say about us, our beliefs and society that we glorify these criminals?
This is the tv section, but a film reference is important to historical context -- when Ocean's 11 (the original) was filmed, the Rat Pack were huge stars. There was a lot of worry about having them play the roles of crooks (which: irony is a heavy thing, yeah?) because the studios were concerned people wouldn't love them any more as icons if they were seen playing bad guys, even loveable bad guys. Turns out America loves a well-dressed, witty bad guy. After Ocean's 11 was a success, leading men were allowed much more "grey" roles in Hollywood. Part of the trope certainly leans on the "bad boy" aspect, but there's also a heavy dose of underdog-wish-fulfillment in both the Caffrey and Ross characters. They're thieves, sure, and liars, and narcissists... but they aren't *evil*, they've just been in bad situations and learned how to exploit "the system" to live well. I think that has an appeal to people. – Monique9 years ago
Another thing to keep in mind, the whole point of a con-man is that they are charismatic. They get what they want by convincing people to give it to them. If they weren't likable they wouldn't be successful con-men. – OddballGentleman9 years ago
I would also check out the new pilot of Sneaky Pete on Amazon. – Erin Derwin9 years ago
